A measure that would give Washington, D.C. voting rights in the House of Representatives cleared a major hurdle this morning when the Senate approved 62-34 a procedural motion to move the issue forward.

But the vote on the bill, S. 160, which would add two seats to the House – one from the district of Columbia and one from Utah – by no means signaled the end of a long battle. The fight to overturn what advocates for the district’s voting rights call “taxation without representation’’ will likely wind up as a constitutional test in the courts, even if this measure is signed into law. (The House is expected to approve a similar bill, and President Obama has indicated support for it.)

Nearly two years ago, a similar bill passed the House but failed a procedural vote in the Senate by 57-42. Opponents, largely Republicans, have argued in part that the constitution does not permit the district’s nearly 600,000 residents to have a voting representative because it is not a state. They argue that such a move requires an amendment to the constitution, usually involving approval by two-thirds of the states, which is a far steeper climb than passage of a law.

While Eleanor Holmes Norton has served in the House as the district’s elected official for 10 terms, she, like delegates representing United States territories, cannot take part in full-floor votes on legislation on behalf of the district.

Adding an additional congressional district to Utah was a deal struck a few years ago to garner Republican support for the D.C. measure, since the political ramifications of increasing the House by only a Washington district would invariably guarantee another Democratic seat. (Utah was chosen by those who believe its population was undercounted in the 2000 census, thus depriving it of an additional congressional district.)

And Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, argued today on behalf of the Senate bill, saying “representation and suffrage are central to our system of self-government.” (He has written about the constitutionality in an essay for the Harvard Journal on Legislation.)

He pointed out that this session’s proposal also tries to address one other sticking point among opponents about granting voting rights to the district; It explicitly prohibits Senate representation.

Proponents like Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, of Connecticut, an independent and chief sponsor of the bill, argued today that taxes paid by residents and businesses in the nation’s were the second-highest per capita. Opponents countered by saying that the district’s residents get far more back in federal dollars per capita than any other state.

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, said in opposition that the district already technically has representation, with all members of Congress overseeing its welfare and appropriating funds. While advocates counter that that oversight, covered in the constitution’s so-called “district” clause gives Congress the authority to grant representation, Mr. Kyl dismissed that as an incorrect interpretation.

He contended that the courts would find the measure unconstitutional; Article 1 of the Constitution limits representation in the House and Senate to the states. Arguments to the contrary, he said, “are weak and will not survive in court.”

Mr. Kyl and others reached back to the move granting the District of Columbia participation in presidential elections, through members of the Electoral College, which was accomplished through a constitutional amendment (the 23rd).

The discussion about congressional representation for residents of the district dates back nearly 200 years. Advocates for the modern measures point to the fact that even after land was granted by Virginia and Maryland to create the nation’s capital, residents living within those confines were still able to vote in either state for the ensuing 11 years. Mr. Lieberman noted today that when the district was formally established in 1800, there was silence on this issue, and he lamented the fact that at the time, slaves, women and even some men did not have voting rights.

Repeatedly cited — and as Senator Richard Durbin, Democratic majority whip from Illinois joked today that he would otherwise rarely quote this expert — is an Op-Ed written by Kenneth W. Starr (and Patricia) in the Washington Post a few years back that argues Congress does have the authority to grant such representation. Opponents cited testimony by Jonathan Turley, a law professor, in which he called the move flagrantly unconstitutional, and an article rebutting Mr. Starr’s viewpoint by Matthew J. Franck in the National Review.

A number of Republicans voted with Democrats in support of S. 160 today, including Senator Hatch, Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Max Baucus of Montana, both Democrats, voted against the measure.

As a progressive, I unfortunately have to agree with Mr. Kyl on this one. A constitutional amendment is necessary to give the District of Columbia voting rights in the House of Representatives.

That said, that amendment should be picked up immediately. The argument presented by Mr. Kyl that it already has representation because of “all members of Congress overseeing its welfare and appropriating funds” is ridiculous and should be tossed out for it’s stupidity.

Republicans want to have their cake and eat it too. If DC residents have no right to representation, then they should not be taxed either. As usual, the Republicans cherry-pick the parts of the Constitution they like (about 10%) and ignore the other 90%.

If DC wants representation, then the most sensible answer is to re-patriate it back into Maryland from which it was originally carved. Indeed, there is the precedent in that Virgina’s part of DC has re-joined Virginia where it is now Arlington County.

I guess if I lived in DC this would be important — taxation without representation and all that — but with the economy in the biggest crisis since the great depression and millions of people unemployed with tens of thousands more every day — this just does not seem like something Congress should be spending their time on right now.

There is a more effective, though rather arcane, way to accomplish the same goal. Article IV, sec. 3 of the US Constitution prohibits the formation of a new state from part of an existing one, unless both Congress and the legislature of the existing state consent. (This is how West Virginia was formed from what was then Virginia just prior to the Civil War). The currently existing DC was once part of Maryland. Congress should return that part of DC not owned by the federal government to Maryland. Congress and the Maryland legislature could then consent to the formation of a new state. If the votes are there to give DC representation in the House, then consent to statehood should also pass. Maryland wouldn’t object, since the change would have no impact on it. And DC also would have two Senators.

Those who insist that we use the constitution on the issue of DC may wish to return to the time that the constitution was constructed and reintroduce slavery. If so those wanting to return to those times would volunteer for slavery, there are some among their political allies who would surely oblige them

The size of Washington today warrants that the people have representatives. This constitution talk is a lofty way to clothe simple banal everyday political objectives. These people do not live in the age of Obama. Now old fashioned politics is used to promote the general welfare. The Democrats in Congress may be slowly getting the point but the Republican Party led by the Father Coughlin of our time, Rush Limbaugh is lost in their own rhetoric.

This country is in transition and we are about to return to a condition where we are not all vassals of the finance industry. This is a source of distress to the powerful financial backers of the Party, like Grover Norquist and his ilk.

Of course Maryland would object. DC is a very very poor city, with a lot of problems. No state wants to have to take care of it. Furthermore, it would shift the power of balance within the state dramatically: Republicans are sure to oppose it, and the state’s Democratic elites will not want to make room for DC leaders.

And there you have the sticking point, ny independent. The only reason the bill got a few Republican votes today–notably Sen. Hatch’s–is because it also gives another representative to Utah. Even I, a liberal, don’t think that a stateless city should have two senators. I do think the people of DC deserve a representative in Congress who has actual voting power.

What you’re calling for ny independent, is the creation of a new state, and thus adding not just one representative to the House, but also two new Senators to the Senate. That could dramatically shift the power of the Senate, as DC tends to be very pro-Democrat. Republicans would never go for it.

No, I think an Amendment giving all US territories (DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands) representation in the House of Representatives proportional to their populations is definitely the way to go.

Amazing, the Republicans know that they have been denying these citizens representation, and have argued that it was a procedural matter. Then they turn around and agree to grant them their due, but only if their votes can be offset by a group that will likely vote in the opposite manner – thereby nullifying the will of the people of the District of Columbia. What shallow hypocrisy!

I think you misunderstood my comment. DC would not become a permanent part of Maryland. It would be returned to Maryland only for the purpose of its legislature and the US Congress approving statehood for it, thus complying with the technical language of Article IV, sec. 3 of the US Constitution. DC would then become the 51st state, separate and apart from Maryland, with its own House and Senate members.

I would like Sen Shelby from Alabama to seek for the American people the original birth certificate of Gov Jindal since his parents are Indian immigrants. We understand he is one of their poster boy for the run in 2012.
His concern over President Obama’s eligibility based on not seeing his birth certificate(even though it is all over the internet) is appalling and revealed his deep seated hatred and hypocrisy .

If it takes a Constitutional amendment to get some real representation in DC, then do it.
The current system in place is a joke and the political posturing is a bigger joke.
The people of DC do not vote for the Congress to represent them and so there is nothing at stake for the COngress to take care of those people.
The DC schools are arguably the biggest embarrassment in the nation.
These fellow american citizens deserve real representation. That it has taken so long to wrap this up is just bizarre. I mean here we are spending a trillion dollars to make Iraq a democracy and we have the DC mess. Can we take care of our own?

“DC residents knew the score when they moved there. It’s too late to change the rules.”
Wow! What about people born here? And how is it too late to change the rules? When the Constitution was written there was no Washington, DC. When DC was founded there was no expectation of it one day turning into a city with over a half million people. DC is a completely different place now than it once was, and I for one am very excited about this vote. There are 600,000 people in this country just like you but who do not get the advantages of those who live in a state! DC has more people than Wyoming yet none of the representation. We are not all politicians, nor do most of us have anything to DO with politics, we just live here.

“Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, said in opposition that the district already technically has representation, with all members of Congress overseeing its welfare and appropriating funds.”
And they do such a wonderful job! They really care about us I am sure.

“No taxation without repersentation” is one of the reasons, and principles, that this country was born. Now, over 270
years later, we are still arguing this point. What ever law,
needs to be passed, or amendment to be added, it
should be done. These second class citizens, pay taxes
vote in elections, and live by the same laws as the rest of us, and needs full repersentation in both houses. I don’t
care who they are going to vote with, or which party they
will follow, it should not matter, its the right thing to do.

No, I think an Amendment giving all US territories (DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands) representation in the House of Representatives proportional to their populations is definitely the way to go.
— Greg

That sounds good to me, Greg, but do you think it could pass the Senate, much less 3/4 of the states? I seriously doubt it. It’s politically unpalatable to the Republicans–as it would be to the Democrats if the populations of DC and the territories were Republican.

The legislation approved by the Senate today is a band-aid solution. The proper way to do this is amending the US Constitution to grant Washington, DC status as a state. The framers intent was that Washington, DC was meant to be a district to conduct the business of government and was not to have any permanent residents. The residents came as the results of slaves and servants bringing brought into the city to serve members of Congress, who chose to live in the city during the times Congress was in session. Also, slaves and servants were brought in to serve the President of the United States. Thus, housing had to be built to accommodate the servants and slaves. As the federal government grew, federal employees also started moving into the district, thus escalating the population growth. Meanwhile, there were no constitutional provisions for residency in Washington, DC.

Those complaining about Washington, DC being not represented knowing (or unknowingly) moved into a area which was never meant to be a place of residence. Over the years, Congress ignored the situation to the point that 600,000 people now live in the district.

In order to truly make it legal, amending the US Constitution should be the final solution. The legislation passed by the Senate today should be a stop gap measure, for the short term.

The United States is not unique in this situation. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) was carved out of the states of Victoria and New South Wales to move the Australian capitol from Melbourne to the new city of Canberra. From the onset, the ACT has had representation in Parliament and the ACT was intended to be a territory which would house residents, mostly because it was 500 miles from Sydney and Melbourne the main population centers.

While I approve of this bill, it’s not enough. DC has a larger population than Wyoming; it more than deserves statehood. This shouldn’t be about politics but instead about upholding the philosophy of representative government our country was founded on.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…